In the news

People get very sentimental about breweries and forget it's actually a business and it's really all about money at the end of the day.

Nonsense, it's all about ensuring hippy can carry on beer doping.

I don't think he'll be discouraged.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/essex-council-to-charge-2592-lifting-charge-to-help-elderly-up-when-they-fall-a6778376.html

Not really making fun of the flooding, but
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-35166747 "flooding 'destroyed lives'" seems slightly absurd when the article above is
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35162523
(Russian airstrikes kill 200 civilians)

[also it seems ridiculous that the Russians are killing civilians, but the RAF are amazing and not killing any civilians]

^the Russians are bombing cities though. Think RAF has mainly been going after oil stuff.

RAF has super geeky weapons.

Russia is a honey badger.

Should all headlines be written in context of other headlines? The flooding is destroying lives to some extent. It's also a quote form Roy Ashley. I see what you're getting at but these 2 examples are a bit of a stretch.

Don't the RAF claim that their precision missiles don't cause collateral damage and hit only what they are meant to hit?

Don't the Russians just carpet bomb the general vicinity where there might be anti Assad troops?

Aren't these totally different things that should not cause the two operations to never be lumped in together?

If you lived in Cumbria and lost your home and business to the floods, wouldn't you consider your life to have been destroyed?

In celeb news Madonna is a cunt

Amazing...

.

Not really making fun of the flooding, but
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cum­bria-35166747 "flooding 'destroyed lives'" seems slightly absurd when the article above is
bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-e­ast-35162523
(Russian airstrikes kill 200 civilians)

[also it seems ridiculous that the Russians are killing civilians, but the RAF are amazing and not killing any civilians]

Totally agree with you mate. For the floods to 'destroy lives' people would have had to have drowned.

Syrian refugees would probably be happy to live in a flood plain in Cumbria if it meant they didnt get bombed

Im willing to bet that RAF actions have destroyed lives, innocent brown lives I mean not just the dangerous brown lives. And I knew that would be happening before Mr Benn had his 'astute politician' costume on for his speech in support of call me Dave.

Seriously, does anyone believe Raf bombs are smart enough to target only the 'guilty'

Didn't Eminem write a song about that?

I believe the bombs are precise to within a few metres what with GPS, laser designation and so forth. So then it's all down to the intelligence and the targets. If they're hitting ISIS oil installations in the arse end of nowhere then that seems pretty clear cut. Same as those who are actively fighting at the time.

Towns and cities etc, I'm not so sure they could do it without causing civilian casualties either because of bad intel or the weapon causing damage to people or stuff near the target.

My understanding is that the RAF is doing the former, whilst the Russians are doing the latter. The Russians do use GPS/GLONASS guided bombs though, I believe.

Precision bombs are at best only as good as the intelligence/motivation that directs them.

Edit: ^ this

as good as the intelligence/motivation that directs them

"The government motion specifically authorises air strikes "exclusively" against IS in Syria - but not deploying British troops on the ground."

No mention of attacking only supply lines or infrastructure. In fact if this was the case it would be short sighted in my opinion.

No, we will be supporting our allies in attacking the heart of isil which, in effect, will be Raqqa and Mosul.

I believe the bombs are precise to within a few metres what with GPS, laser designation and so forth.

They are. However the blast radius is much more than that.

That's what kills non-combatants.

Precision bombs are at best only as good as the intelligence/motivation that directs them.

Edit: ^ this

I shall. Unless we get this.

Then any 'smart' missile may well kill the target but it kills a lot more.

And this will be my last post tonight on the subject.

Let's remember that the Military definition of 'Smart' just means we aren't doing a 'Carpet Bombing Campaign' anymore.

No mention of attacking only supply lines or infrastructure. In fact if this was the case it would be short sighted in my opinion.

No, we will be supporting our allies in attacking the heart of isil which, in effect, will be Raqqa and Mosul.

Wait - you're saying the RAF must be bad for killing innocents by bombing urban areas, but that it would be short-sighted to avoid bombing urban areas and focus on the supply lines?

Apart from the fact your argument contradicts itself, you clearly haven't read much military history. Going after supply lines is generally considered to be a quicker, less costly way of weakening your adversary than trying to exterminate a bunch of people. Less evil too.

As I said:

the weapon causing damage to people or stuff near the target.

I think he/she just meant the reality is you do both.

Don't the RAF claim that their precision missiles don't cause collateral damage and hit only what they are meant to hit?

Don't the Russians just carpet bomb the general vicinity where there might be anti Assad troops?

The Russians are also using precision bombs - KAB 1500 laser guided and their latest video guided bombs which have a camera in the nose (KAB-500OD TV-guided thermobaric). However they are also using cluster bombs, such as the RBK-500U, which are particularly evil. The RAF got a lot of stick for using cluster bombs in Iraq and most of our stockpile of them has now been destroyed. I'm fairly sure the RAF aren't using them in Syria.

War kills civilians, period. Don't believe government propaganda suggesting otherwise. The real difference is that the RAF are bombing IS, but the Russian planes are bombing the rebels while Putin claims they are bombing IS.

If there's IS to begin with.

The Russian, British et all are supporting ISIS currently with their action.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory!

It's funny how nature abhors a vacuum.

I'm reminded of the crackpot theory that the war in Syria is all to allow Qatar to build a pipeline directly to Europe when they already sell us gas in tankers and have no reason to spend the money on a pipeline, which I'm fairly sure I've seen somewhere on LFGSS as well as elsewhere. It just makes no sense. But it fits a lot of prejudices about how there must be a dark conspiracy in the upper reaches of government. Government just isn't that competent! Christ, we saw through it pretty quickly when they tried to 'sex up' the 45min claims back in 2003.